phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Mechanical tests (was: POMELO fails the dieharder tests)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <29221.1396719840@critter.freebsd.dk>
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2014 17:44:00 +0000
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@....freebsd.dk>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net, Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PHC] Mechanical tests (was: POMELO fails the dieharder tests)

In message <CAOLP8p7wqfgsEQmD2iQg6AgKLhZZvYkL2oegrub3kxVgkvts5w@...l.gmail.com>
, Bill Cox writes:

>By the way, the compression test is already in dieharder.

Yes, I know that, but it is still a "onesided" test.

What I want to test is twosided:  Do we at least get as much
entropy out as we put in ?

I realize that it's trivially easy to survive that test, but
that doesn't mean it shouldn't be run.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@...eBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.